Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Fri, 21 June 2013 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5832F21F9EDC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uVjhwNZMMCx5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0064C21F9BC1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id kx10so7919545pab.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UbUqiOoWaeEEMaawcWynskR7/a6N/lo1ptGAF/wyLeQ=; b=ClQuPAxldUfoe1r9CD9dSoIxmam2nOrPtHQRmgruXdTGXfi4U2yfCjBL2wHBdJb+WK T0yF9Um2ey0i+na+00uOMGMN4UXXIM5hWeDDRywWXb0HOInnd1npJEz3S5kGYObqi0UM UEsi4bpALpvCt6UqYnaBtVsHGdSR+2KqksI4MhzbfXGovt9Elf41wJ+Z+VPCl5NGI1b1 oEflDN/WKe/H+huLkGTdIj+Tu4WCWtCzlqYZZV6dRB3SwCRtrYSvCACzcsffoAEqwuhu S0FtMT35S8yzstsloQPH0wYbvho0vnp4UlGEwNLOhJiaJT0Uy/D/RdrFSpIg36Sqj8s2 LdAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=UbUqiOoWaeEEMaawcWynskR7/a6N/lo1ptGAF/wyLeQ=; b=X85tmXvaZV08B6o/uNeQH4lQNGWrPQ0+AcDQ28Vf5jSBYyXcZXiZPIdnkX4ZLHG0fR Aoqh26sCp01A1PlhY7Tey3GwwpGIPXk3zcqbEka81KlajVivfecrqinGRbkw123EDOV2 LDesAD0Hdxtaq1unDR+e3N1i3ZL3iOWHmGBa+YbqciEmckG4YYDxM5f57peRQ+CSttSa mrSVcSOtQ/63z42HsMWqTOePc/1iH/GxoB0hCJIii5AzDgol7At706LhAYZ1+96QKqw7 ui+FDlH9523kRRNlSjHZOCAPgGOo6YK6JJiF8rGax+IiHuMIYs1Te2NMI1J0AgmcPxwi 8pTg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.251.202 with SMTP id zm10mr16743232pac.53.1371825755271; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1371807600.23131.YahooMailNeo@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWfV=5xBaRqAddqUURThs9J4T4+0HK4Ux07VA51r5oC3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFNGKvWHw-yqeApEdTeuqMNPTDxvdKZ2DuzANmcR2y2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHCkQSLab2UuY_vWP3Gr8uh+++c9mDq5f4sCpuaK5aeLQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C1B907.8060508@hookflash.com> <CAJrXDUG06jvPvhfNwZ6Puzxj7E4XxELG_fU=S7B_c=tnC9eoNQ@mail.gmail.com> <78192824-A516-4376-8D4F-3B052ED47A0C@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUGOYc_Z_qWD7J0ZzVdfwYOacH_p5PjZEg5aP1LUetffMA@mail.gmail.com> <51C1F2E9.20405@hookflash.com> <51C1F5ED.9090308@matthew.at> <51C20FAA.4050701@hookflash.com> <CABkgnnWw9anT+h_hnF14nBChS73qpTb31hSM=p2KnGrcRPGRJA@mail.gmail.com> <51C3209B.1030501@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfkEpwxNZL8TU0ofCzRB_Gza+NoSnZpGcM=tuYBOXmHsZQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C335F9.4000900@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfk_wwvdSixFYWpBBdUNfXxmcOwCnRsjyS6J3M9WG_dJCg@mail.gmail.com> <51C38356.3020402@jitsi.org> <CALiegfm1xYpAnmrg=4vx_06RZQTo_RS2nFJoidpoQtjg2kn=Vw@mail.gmail.com> <1371807600.23131.YahooMailNeo@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:42:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFFzAdBtQp5mS9Kfgs-N11D7SL22ms=uBg8EcHhaiB_+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
To: Bossiel thioriguel <bossiel@yahoo.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15a385d6479604dfab1227
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmwXDGD4xu4MHgGgBWeuiBw70DxCSN9Z/UwspoGz254rS0deVNH2IO3w+VnXtus9Fz0mvNqwTLtP7m+YTGN4LUu08CyHG4SuTx1ZPJw+haj6/GFBcI7PPw68oseWQFKO5NDLgtXua8k5sSRDI2RYJ/UAT1ZbUyTXpkLrJqorzvrdW0lPrJQabcE/GM+SDH0HsH0MeII
Cc: diopmamadou@doubango.org, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:42:37 -0000

Do you work with video or just audio?

Do you work with multiple streams/tracks, both send and receive?

Do you use features such as rtx, fec, and simulcast?

Simple, single-track, audio-only clients that use SDP for signalling over
the wire are fairly well served by the current API, as are clients only
using the data channel.  But doing more advanced things, such as those I
mention, require significant SDP munging which can be a very slow and
error-prone experience.

Your experience may differ from others because they are trying to do things
that require a lot more SDP munging, which can be quite painful.
On Jun 21, 2013 2:40 AM, "Bossiel thioriguel" <bossiel@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm registered on this group since the beginning but this is my first post
> on this thread. So, I presente myself: Mamadou DIOP and I'm working for
> Doubango Telecom where we're building SIP endpoints, gateways,
> TelePresence/Telemedicine systems... all focused on SIP/IMS/LTE/RCS-e and
> open source.
>
> What I'm talking about is not just feeling but something I've experienced.
>
> Using the current WebRTC we have managed to *easily* build almost all kind
> of applications: click-to-call, SIP/IMS clients, gateways to PSTN, MCUs,
> Telemedicine systems...and haven't seen any major issue. It's true that
> it's not natural to "hack" a blob SDP to implement features like
> hold/resume, media update, early media ... but it works and there are demo
> applications showing it. If there is something more beautiful we just want
> to see it in action and test it.
>
> Many participants here have said that what they want is something close to
> CU-RTC-WEB. Don't really know if they tried to build applications using it
> or not but in my case I have.
> My reference:
> http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/prototypes/cu-rtc-web-roaming/cu-rtc-web-roaming/info
> First on Windows 8 but haven't gone far as there is no documentation to
> get started. Then, OSX and luckily there was a readme with two links for
> testing (only one work). You need to open 3 pages (1 master, 2 slaves) and
> check "send audio" on both slaves to header sound. Many javascript files
> and no documentation. It's said on these blogs that interop with SIP
> networks is easy but it's not my feeling ...I just want to see one :)
>
> I don't really understand the issue with the O/A model. SDP or not SDP
> you'll always offer something and answer something. I'm I missing?
>
> For the current WebRTC, Google open sourced their engine, produced drafts,
> a working implementation in chrome, a mailing-list to help developers, demo
> applications, documentation... we just want to see the same from any
> company asking to rewrite everything.
>
> I'm not saying the current WebRTC implementation is perfect but I have
> seen my 14 year old nephew developing an audio/video chat for his homework
> :)
>
> Regards
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *De :* Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
> *À :* Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
> *Cc :* "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 21 juin 2013 1h24
> *Objet :* Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
>
> 2013/6/21 Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>rg>:
> >
> > On 20.06.13, 23:49, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> >>
> >> In JsSIP we are getting frustrated trying to implement the "hold" /
> >> "unhold" feature because it requires SDP parsing and mangling. Sending
> >> a re-INVITE with a modified SDP (now with a video track enabled) seems
> >> to work (after lot of pain) but we still miss a reliable API to know
> >> what the new SDP means. Instead we need to parse the SDP to detect
> >> global (or per m=) line attributes like "a=inactive" or "a=sendonly"
> >> etc etc. It's really painful.
> >
> >
> > I am having a problem following what you are trying to achieve here. In
> > JsSIP you seem to be going for a full SIP implementation in the browser.
> If
> > this is true and if this WG decides to remove SDP from the API surface,
> then
> > you would need to completely parse SDP in the JS and then convert it into
> > API calls. Similarly, when creating offers and answers you would need to
> > construct SDP all by yourself.
>
> And we will do it very happily because then we will know what
> *exactly* we are sending on-the-wire.
>
>
>
>
> > So I am not sure why the SDP parsing in the current situation is so much
> of
> > a blocker for your use case.
>
> Because regardless I am a SIP-guy, I understand that the main mission
> of WebRTC is to provide realtime communications *for* the WWW, and not
> to enable a new interface for like-telephony-bussines.
>
> Today I'm doing SIP. Tomorrow I may be doing
> [[put_here_a_future_RTC_protocol_not_based_on_SDP]] and then I don't
> want to be constrained by decisions made today that force any future
> RTC protocol to deal with SDP O/A model.
>
> :)
>
>
>
> >> BTW I don't know wheter you support PlanA, PlanB or NoPlan, but I did
> >> a question (in this case about NoPlan) for which I got no response,
> >> and honestly I would like to see it replied regardless the solution
> >> uses PlanA, PlanB or NoPlan model:
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07871.html
> >>
> > The other option would be indeed to do the same thing in JS. I believe
> this
> > is JsSIP's use case. In that case however, regardless of whether you
> choose
> > Plan A, Plan B, No Plan or CU-RTC-Web, you will inevitably be exposed to
> a
> > fair amount of complexity, parsing and JS magic.
> >
> > You are, after all, building a SIP stack.
>
> Yes, but JsSIP creates its own SIP messages to be sent in the wire, so
> we have full control over *what* we create and send. Those SIP
> messages are not provided by the WebRTC API. But for the SDP
> component, JsSIP retreives a SDP blob string from the PC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > In the above mail you also say:
> >
> >> Another example:
> >>
> >> * I am a powerful SIP conference server which properly implements
> >> WebRTC. I initiate a call to 5 users (running JS SIP app in their
> >> browsers). The initial INVITE has SSRC/MSID fields in the SDP
> >> identifying all the participants, am I right?
> >
> >
> > No, with No Plan there are no SSRCs and MSIDs in the SDP that comes from
> the
> > browser.
>
> OK
>
>
> >> * Later, during the conference, I call to another 6th participant and
> >> enter him into the conference, so I need to send a re-INVITE to every
> >> participant with a modified version of the SDP (note that this is SIP
> >> protocol, so I need to use SIP messages to carry the new info about
> >> SSRC/MSID and so on).
> >
> >
> > That's the thing. You don't need that. In Jitsi we do exactly this
> operation
> > with no Offer/Answer signalling. RTP carries enough information to
> process
> > streams and we use upper layer signalling (4575) for things such as
> mapping
> > SSRCs to users and announcing current participant list.
>
> That is much better than Plan A and Plan B.
>
>
>
> BTW: What would happen in NoPlan if the remote (i.e. a SIP
> gateway/endpoing) sends you a re-INVITE for "hold" purposes and you
> pass the SDP to your PC? or you should not pass the SDP to your PC?
> and if so, what about if the SDP contains updated ICE candidates due
> to remote peer network mobility?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your response.
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>